Do you even know what atheist means

[Miserabilia]

.....

[Damien2014]

Well In my opinion there is no religion so I am "Atheist" so for those people who are full of themselves and want others to be "Religious" can basically go screw themselves , the ones who don't do that I am fine with just as long as they are nice...

[Bmble_B]

I find this very insulting [Though I'm Christian] I have a few fniends that are atheist and Im ok with that, and I dont try to convince them otherwise.

[ksdnfkfr]

idk how i'm supposed to take some guy ranting during a motorcycle ride seriously.
Hard to hear him and distracting as well.
To me if someone believes in God that's fine.
To me if someone doesn't believe in God that's fine.
Quickly get a headache listening to arguments and debates about this.

[Gamma Male]

Rocks are atheists. Baby's are atheists. Ducks are atheists. Your house is an atheist. The universe is an atheist. Atheism isn't the believe that god doesn't exist, it is the lack of believe. There is a difference, and this guy doesn't seem to be able to wrap his head around that. Plus, helis remarks are kind of insulting. :/

[Miserabilia]

idk how i'm supposed to take some guy ranting during a motorcycle ride seriously.
Hard to hear him and distracting as well.
To me if someone believes in God that's fine.
To me if someone doesn't believe in God that's fine.
Quickly get a headache listening to arguments and debates about this.

Rocks are atheists. Baby's are atheists. Ducks are atheists. Your house is an atheist. The universe is an atheist. Atheism isn't the believe that god doesn't exist, it is the lack of believe. There is a difference, and this guy doesn't seem to be able to wrap his head around that. Plus, helis remarks are kind of insulting. :/

yup to both of you

[RavleIncarnate]

If I'm atheistic, I dunno if I am, cuz I don't feel like I actually do believe in God, but I still believe in spirits and stuff, but also I have most Christian values. Qoute if you want a reply, thanks.

[Croconaw]

Atheism isn't the believe that god doesn't exist, it is the lack of believe. There is a difference, and this guy doesn't seem to be able to wrap his head around that.
I completely agree. This is what people need to understand.

[Karkat]

Ok, I'm an agnostic theist (which already states something here) and everything he's saying is a load of bull!

I know plenty of intelligent atheists, I know plenty of unintelligent theists that don't actually know what their religion means and don't care to. They just hang on the coattails of being brought up with said religion, because they think it makes them better than those who aren't religious somehow. (I'm looking at you, Christians who do not actually know what the Bible says, seeing as most from other religions know what they believe, and don't just pretend to. I'm not saying that all do, just that Christians [especially in the US] have such a high tendency of knowing nothing about what they pretend to believe. They're a bunch of pretentious bigots.)

I personally can't stand theists who mock atheists and try to make them look bad, and I can't stand atheists who mock theists and try to make them look bad. Or theists that make theists of other religions look bad, etc.

You can believe what you believe, but it does not make you better than anyone else.

[Its Pretty]

Lmao likes and dislikes are disabled fml

[Miserabilia]

Ok, I'm an agnostic theist (which already states something here) and everything he's saying is a load of bull!

I know plenty of intelligent atheists, I know plenty of unintelligent theists that don't actually know what their religion means and don't care to. They just hang on the coattails of being brought up with said religion, because they think it makes them better than those who aren't religious somehow. (I'm looking at you, Christians who do not actually know what the Bible says, seeing as most from other religions know what they believe, and don't just pretend to. I'm not saying that all do, just that Christians [especially in the US] have such a high tendency of knowing nothing about what they pretend to believe. They're a bunch of pretentious bigots.)

I personally can't stand theists who mock atheists and try to make them look bad, and I can't stand atheists who mock theists and try to make them look bad. Or theists that make theists of other religions look bad, etc.

You can believe what you believe, but it does not make you better than anyone else.

Well said.
Lmao likes and dislikes are disabled fml

IKR! That guy does it on each of his videos *facepalm*

[Gamma Male]

If I'm atheistic, I dunno if I am, cuz I don't feel like I actually do believe in God, but I still believe in spirits and stuff, but also I have most Christian values. Qoute if you want a reply, thanks.

I've never understand the whole "I don't belive in the bible, but agree with there's e morals" position. Have you read the bible? Sure, there's the occasional "love thy neighbour" stuff, but there is far, far more homophobia, racism, bigotry, violence, sexism, and god endorsed genocie and rape. Thankfully, most christians today choose are pretty selective in their obedience of the bible, but they're there nonetheless. If you really respected christian morals you would be in prison right now.

[Miserabilia]

If I'm atheistic, I dunno if I am, cuz I don't feel like I actually do believe in God, but I still believe in spirits and stuff, but also I have most Christian values. Qoute if you want a reply, thanks.

Beleive in god = theist
Don't beleive = Atheist
Not sure = Agnostic

[Its Pretty]

So wait, where in the video does he actually make a real argument against atheism? I'm sitting here about 6 minutes in listening to him insult atheists over and over again dancing around how he 'destroyed the animals'.

EDIT: 7 minutes first thing he said to use as an argument against atheists is that you 'cant prove that god doesn't exist' lol

[Miserabilia]

So wait, where in the video does he actually make a real argument against atheism? I'm sitting here about 6 minutes in listening to him insult atheists over and over again dancing around how he 'destroyed the animals'.

EDIT: 7 minutes first thing he said to use as an argument against atheists is that you 'cant prove that god doesn't exist' lol

Yeah, and that by definition isn't even a legitimate argument xD
Trust me, you should just give up watching these videos,
when I try they usually just make me sad or angry with dissapointment

[AlexOnToast]

To call Atheism a belief/religion is to call not collecting stamps a hobby, or not smoking a habit.

It't all LOL in my eyes.

[Its Pretty]

'Athiesm is gayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy'

lmfao
Such a hateful person x(

[StoppingTime]

Not sure = Agnostic

Um, no? Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know anything about the nature of a God/god/any sort of "higher" being. Agnostics (generally) also claim neither belief nor disbelief in a god. So no, they're certainly "sure" of their beliefs.

[Miserabilia]

Um, no? Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know anything about the nature of a God/god/any sort of "higher" being. Agnostics (generally) also claim neither belief nor disbelief in a god. So no, they're certainly "sure" of their beliefs.

You're right, that was stupid of me.
/:

I wasn't sure what else to call it, I know alot of people that aren't sure that call themselves agnostic.
I wasn't aware of the technical definition

[RavleIncarnate]

I've never understand the whole "I don't belive in the bible, but agree with there's e morals" position. Have you read the bible? Sure, there's the occasional "love thy neighbour" stuff, but there is far, far more homophobia, racism, bigotry, violence, sexism, and god endorsed genocie and rape. Thankfully, most christians today choose are pretty selective in their obedience of the bible, but they're there nonetheless. If you really respected christian morals you would be in prison right now.

I haven't even totally understanded it, but I'm from a Christin family, so I kinda have to act asif I'm Christian. They wNt me to go to church and stuff, but I never reallt liked it there, especially with all the people (I'm topophobic and I don't like people) and all thedressing up and combing your hair is irritating. I like to look good and feel comfortable. And by Chrisrian values I mean like the Ten Commandments and stuff. But that's that. I'm glad for that too.

[Karkat]

I've never understand the whole "I don't belive in the bible, but agree with there's e morals" position. Have you read the bible? Sure, there's the occasional "love thy neighbour" stuff, but there is far, far more homophobia, racism, bigotry, violence, sexism, and god endorsed genocie and rape. Thankfully, most christians today choose are pretty selective in their obedience of the bible, but they're there nonetheless. If you really respected christian morals you would be in prison right now.

Thing is, most of that is old testament, which is obsolete. Jesus coming down to earth and giving his life in the ransom sacrifice made it obsolete. I mean, there was a time when god supported (his kingdom) going to war, let them have multiple wives and prostitutes, exiled lepers and menstruating women, and didn't let gentiles (non-jews) be a part of his kingdom. Women were also actively oppressed and treated as the weaker sex, essentially. Thing is, the ransom sacrifice and Jesus' ministry changed or impacted all of it.

War was no longer approved, so genocide was now actually against god's word.
Prostitution and polygamy was no longer supported, in fact it was condemned.
Jesus healed lepers and women with menstruation problems, he talked to women and treated them as real, living people. He talked to those of other tribes and races as well, and treated them as people.
After his death, gentiles were allowed into congregations and allowed to be baptized.
No more sabbath day, sexist and racist attitudes in congregation members could lead to removal from the congregation and actually condemn them.

Also, there are multiple translations of the Bible. All of them are different in some way. Even the one that bible scholars have agreed was one of the most accurate has been revised in light of understanding in different cultures and languages, as well as updated, modern English to make it more relevant.

Besides, no translation is going to be 100% accurate. Translations lose context, they lose metaphors, things have to be rearranged, there are cultural gaps, and relevancy gaps.

Essentially, by view of common sense, the only way that you're going to understand exactly what the Bible meant was if you were well-read and fluent in every language it was written in, and you lived during the time period. And at the same time, everyone has different interpretation and perspective, so essentially you'd have to also be the author. There are multiple authors of the Bible.

So in other words, the only one who could rightfully say that he understood the Bible entirely for what it was meant to be...Is God.

So in my opinion, you can't take everything inside it at face value to begin with, even if you've memorized every word in the individual languages it was written in. From the original scrolls and tablets. Because that's the closest anyone in modern times will get to full understanding of it. It's just common sense.

It has a lot of relevant advice, and comforting things, but even these vary from translation to translation- even from language to language.

I'd also like to point out that each religion in Christianity is different. Each interpret the Bible in a different way.

If you were actually that knowledgable about Christianity and the Bible, I'd expect you to at least know some of this. It's your opinion, not a fact that following Christian morals would land you in prison. Because technically, "Christian morals" aren't even specific enough to say...And if you mean the original Christians, once again, time, culture, and language separate us from those, so actually following them would be more speculative than anything. You wouldn't even be able to know for sure.

Also, this seems a little pointed towards Christians. What's wrong with being a Christian? Not every Christian is oppressive and violent, holier-than-thou scum. I know quite a few Christians that only believe in peace and love of fellow man. They don't condone certain lifestyles for themselves, but they don't condemn others because their interpretation of the Bible tells them that they are not the judge- God is.

Um, no? Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know anything about the nature of a God/god/any sort of "higher" being. Agnostics (generally) also claim neither belief nor disbelief in a god. So no, they're certainly "sure" of their beliefs.

Well there are also agnostics who also include "theist" or "atheist" as part of their belief. I believe in god for the most part, but I do not hold that this belief is absolute. I believe that it's not possible to know, at least in this day and age, and accept that god may not exist. I label myself as an agnostic theist.

I haven't even totally understanded it, but I'm from a Christin family, so I kinda have to act asif I'm Christian. They wNt me to go to church and stuff, but I never reallt liked it there, especially with all the people (I'm topophobic and I don't like people) and all thedressing up and combing your hair is irritating. I like to look good and feel comfortable. And by Chrisrian values I mean like the Ten Commandments and stuff. But that's that. I'm glad for that too.
(You know that by what the Bible says the ten commandments are technically obsolete, right? I'm not judging you for believing in them, just wanted to run that past you.)

[StoppingTime]

Well there are also agnostics who also include "theist" or "atheist" as part of their belief. I believe in god for the most part, but I do not hold that this belief is absolute. I believe that it's not possible to know, at least in this day and age, and accept that god may not exist. I label myself as an agnostic theist.

Well of course, there's always differences from the "standard" definition. I was merely saying it was more than about being in a state of "I don't know"

[Karkat]

Well of course, there's always differences from the "standard" definition. I was merely saying it was more than about being in a state of "I don't know"
Ah, ok. I see what you mean. :) Yeah, I agree with you there.

[ksdnfkfr]

Rocks are atheists. Baby's are atheists. Ducks are atheists. Your house is an atheist. The universe is an atheist. Atheism isn't the believe that god doesn't exist, it is the lack of believe. There is a difference, and this guy doesn't seem to be able to wrap his head around that. Plus, helis remarks are kind of insulting. :/

Well put. The man definitely has an attitude. Me thinks maybe this is an ego trip for him, a contest of one upping.

[Miserabilia]

Well put. The man definitely has an attitude. Me thinks maybe this is an ego trip for him, a contest of one upping.

Oh, that's probably the case.
It is a huge ego trip for him, and he doesn't want it to be disturbed so he doesn't listen to any responses and other people's views, lol.

[Vocabulous]

I couldn't even watch 5 minutes of this. This guy is the biggest fucking douchebag I have ever seen. Spends first three minutes talking about how atheists are subhuman and how he can defeat every one of them with "logic" and "reasoning" then when he actually provides his points, they are so circular that it isn't even funny. The only reason he "wins" his debates is that his arguments are so convoluted that it is impossible to provide counter that isn't equally convoluted. I actually lost points off my IQ after listening to this guy. Frankly, fuck him, fuck his reasoning, and fuck everyone who listens to him. He isn't making Christianity better, he is making it far worse.

[Miserabilia]

I couldn't even watch 5 minutes of this. This guy is the biggest fucking douchebag I have ever seen. Spends first three minutes talking about how atheists are subhuman and how he can defeat every one of them with "logic" and "reasoning" then when he actually provides his points, they are so circular that it isn't even funny. The only reason he "wins" his debates is that his arguments are so convoluted that it is impossible to provide counter that isn't equally convoluted. I actually lost points off my IQ after listening to this guy. Frankly, fuck him, fuck his reasoning, and fuck everyone who listens to him. He isn't making Christianity better, he is making it far worse.

My thoughts exactly.

[redbrand12]

Also we disprove of religion because there is no proof to back their claims of a supernatural being/beings.

I'm open to believing in "god," but only if someone can provide one solid proof of evidence that he exist, but no one has been able to do that yet.

I don't believe in god for the following reasons:
~ He doesn't exist (no concrete proof) (Isn't rationality great?)
~ Holy Books feature a lot of contradiction
~ Almost every religion features the same stories
~ God was all seeing but couldn't see a revolt coming up from his own creations

[Aajj333]

Orrrrrrrr you can choose to not let it bother you

[CosmicNoodle]

I'm going to be childish. You have been warned.

Religion is like a penis, its OK to have one, its perfectly fine to be proud of it. BUT, don't pull it out in public, don't push it on children, and don't think with it.

[Miserabilia]

I'm going to be childish. You have been warned.

Religion is like a penis, its OK to have one, its perfectly fine to be proud of it. BUT, don't pull it out in public, don't push it on children, and don't think with it.

ROFL.
Nice description.

[Sir Suomi]

It's sad to think how majority of the people who have tried to "show me the light" have used these same arguments and terminology as this man. It's quite sad actually.

[RavleIncarnate]

Wow. Then this is quite the heated debate, isn't it? And I used to believe when I was little, but when I really started to believe, my whole family started to fall apart with 2 motorcycle accidents, the death of my grandfather, financial problems, arguments that make everyone fall to tears (except me, I'm not a teary guy. Actually, I'm kinda emotionless most of the time. It scares some people that my face doesn't show emotion when they say school is out or when my friend's dad dies. I just don't feel that sorrow and stuff.) And all that, etc. So I stopped.

[sqishy]

I see atheism as not believing in a personal god, that means that an ahteist can believe in a non-personal god for god-like force and/or still be religious. Not going further.

[Vlerchan]

Also we disprove of religion because there is no proof to back their claims of a supernatural being/beings.[1]

I don't believe in god for the following reasons:
~ He doesn't exist (no concrete proof) (Isn't rationality great?)[2]
~ Holy Books feature a lot of contradiction[3]
~ Almost every religion features the same stories[4]
~ God was all seeing but couldn't see a revolt coming up from his own creations[5]
[1]: No concrete proof pertaining towards the existence of a supernatural being(s) does not necessarily infer that said supernatural being(s) do not exist. You have disproved nothing with this claim. EDIT: I realise you simply misspelled disapprove here; point still stands, though.

[2]: No concrete proof pertaining towards the existence of a God or Gods does not necessarily infer that said God or Gods do not exist. You're the one being irrational here by using such an argument to claim the non-existance of a God.

[3]: Irrelevant, frankly.

[4]: Irrelevant, frankly.

[5]: I wasn't aware that a Judeo-Christian God was the only God that could possibly exist.


.

[Plane And Simple]

I just don't get why can't people keep religion to themselves or those who truly want to listen.

[Miserabilia]

[1]: No concrete proof pertaining towards the existence of a supernatural being(s) does not necessarily infer that said supernatural being(s) do not exist. You have disproved nothing with this claim. EDIT: I realise you simply misspelled disapprove here; point still stands, though.

[2]: No concrete proof pertaining towards the existence of a God or Gods does not necessarily infer that said God or Gods do not exist. You're the one being irrational here by using such an argument to claim the non-existance of a God.

[3]: Irrelevant, frankly.

[4]: Irrelevant, frankly.

[5]: I wasn't aware that a Judeo-Christian God was the only God that could possibly exist.


.


Absence of evidence = Evidence of absence

(What's more logical to assume; there is no evidence for a god because there is none, or there is no evidence for a god because there is a god that does everything but hides it from us except for some people in visions)

[Vlerchan]

(What's more logical to assume; there is no evidence for a god because there is none, or there is no evidence for a god because there is a god that does everything but hides it from us except for some people in visions)
False Dichotomy.

It is logical to assume neither because there is no concrete evidence pertaining towards either conclusion (there is or is not a god or gods), both being mere speculation - because, as explained: lack of evidence does not necessarily infer lack of existence. It's wrong to claim one to be 'more logical' because neither is logical to begin with.

[phuckphace]

even assuming two-thirds of commenters on these types of videos aren't trolls, arguing with people via YouTube comments is hopelessly dumb. it's the Internet equivalent of waving around a handwritten sign in a protest and expecting it to do shit (it won't)

[Miserabilia]

False Dichotomy.

It is logical to assume neither because there is no concrete evidence pertaining towards either conclusion (there is or is not a god or gods), both being mere speculation - because, as explained: lack of evidence does not necessarily infer lack of existence. It's wrong to claim one to be 'more logical' because neither is logical to begin with.

Absence of evidence is actualy evidence of absence.
The simplest solution is usually the one that is true, so it's obvious that's when there's no evidence it's more logical to assume there isn't than to assume there is but it hides it evidence.

Also,

qiNiW4_6R3I

[Vlerchan]

Absence of evidence is actualy evidence of absence[1].
The simplest solution is usually the one that is true[2], so it's obvious that's when there's no evidence it's more logical[3] to assume there isn't than to assume there is but it hides it evidence.
[1]: It's not conclusive evidence is the point I'm making. You also won't find any because you can't prove a negative.

[2]: Key word: usually.

[3]: Reasonable*. There's nothing logical about believing in your unsubstantiated claims.

Also, I can't watch videos on my phone.

[Miserabilia]

[1]: It's not conclusive evidence is the point I'm making. You also won't find any because you can't prove a negative.

[2]: Key word: usually.

[3]: Reasonable*. There's nothing logical about believing in your unsubstantiated claims.

Also, I can't watch videos on my phone.

You can't proove a negative, but it's not NEEDED to proove a negative, it's a completely useless waste of time.
We as humans decide that we proove something with evidence; you can never fully DISPROVE something, except maybe mathmeticaly;
there's absolutely no reason to say something exists because you can't disprove it.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

[Vlerchan]

You can't proove a negative, but it's not NEEDED to proove a negative, it's a completely useless waste of time[1]. We as humans decide that we proove something with evidence[2]; you can never fully DISPROVE something, except maybe mathmeticaly[3];
there's absolutely no reason to say something exists because you can't disprove it[4].

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.[5]
[1]: ... unless you're making the claim that something doesn't exist. Then providing concrete evidence pertaining towards the validity of such a claim becomes important - because otherwise it's just speculation.

[2]: What?

[3]: False.

[4]: Please point me towards where I stated that it was a reasonable assumption to make that a god or gods existed. Thanks.

[5]: Not quite.

If I can't provide evidence that X exists that means either a) it doesn't exist - as you claim or b) I don't possess the tools currently to determine its existence.

[Miserabilia]

[1]: ... unless you're making the claim that something doesn't exist. Then providing concrete evidence pertaining towards the validity of such a claim becomes important - because otherwise it's just speculation.

[2]: What?

[3]: False.

[4]: Please point me towards where I stated that it was a reasonable assumption to make that a god or gods existed. Thanks.

[5]: Not quite.

If I can't provide evidence that X exists that means either a) it doesn't exist - as you claim or b) I don't possess the tools currently to determine its existence.

What?

I mean that for communication and science to work we decide that you need evidence to support the existence of something

False.


What was false about it? I said two things.

[Vlerchan]

[...] you need evidence to support the existence of something
I'm not claiming the existence of something.

It's you who's making the claims here.

What was false about it? I said two things.
It is possible to disprove (and prove) some things.

[EddietheZombie]

I'm Christian and accept everyone, but that guy is moron. People like him, priest pedophiles, Westboro, and some of the members of the Vatican are what give Christianity a bad name.....

[green white]

hmmm..... atheis????
I have a atheis friend and he ok
no problem if you atheis, cristian, Buddhis or moslem

[plebble]

Atheist = Absence of theism
Theism: The belief that a god exists
Atheism: The belief that there is not god

[abc983055235235231a]

K here's the thing.... you actually can prove a negative. It tends to be *a lot* more difficult than proving positives, but you can prove negatives.

I feel like people really say dumb stuff when they are talking about (a) god. There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about positing some sort of "divine" entity. I think it might become a bit problematic when we require that (a) god be ultimately good, and all-powerful/all-knowing to the extent that religion tends to prefer, but it is extremely plausible that the universe we live in was intentionally created by an agent of some sort.

[Capto]

proving a negative is theoretically possible within a confined subject, however, when you have a growing or fluctuating sample size youre gonna run into essentially a distilled and modified version of zeno's dichotomy paradox

[abc983055235235231a]

proving a negative is theoretically possible within a confined subject, however, when you have a growing or fluctuating sample size youre gonna run into essentially a distilled and modified version of zeno's dichotomy paradox

Concrete proofs actually don't involve sample sizes at all. They are on a theoretical level.

[Miserabilia]

Concrete proofs actually don't involve sample sizes at all. They are on a theoretical level.

proving a negative is theoretically possible within a confined subject, however, when you have a growing or fluctuating sample size youre gonna run into essentially a distilled and modified version of zeno's dichotomy paradox

K here's the thing.... you actually can prove a negative. It tends to be *a lot* more difficult than proving positives, but you can prove negatives.

I feel like people really say dumb stuff when they are talking about (a) god. There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about positing some sort of "divine" entity. I think it might become a bit problematic when we require that (a) god be ultimately good, and all-powerful/all-knowing to the extent that religion tends to prefer, but it is extremely plausible that the universe we live in was intentionally created by an agent of some sort.

Okay sorry for my poorly chosen words, let me correct myself;
You CAN proove a negative,
BUT it's not what we usualy do to proove something.
If we want to determine we exist, we proove it's existence, we don't say it exists because it's existence is not DISproven

[abc983055235235231a]

Okay sorry for my poorly chosen words, let me correct myself;
You CAN proove a negative,
BUT it's not what we usualy do to proove something.
If we want to determine we exist, we proove it's existence, we don't say it exists because it's existence is not DISproven

You're right, but people (atheists in particular) tend to take this to mean a lot more than it does.
Even if "You can't disprove God exists" is a bad argument for the existence of God, that doesn't give any reason for us to believe that God doesn't exist. At best, it tells us that we should be completely agnostic--that is, say that we have absolutely no idea about whether or not God exists.
When the atheist says "God does not exist" they require just as much proof as the theist requires when they say "God exists".

[Miserabilia]

You're right, but people (atheists in particular) tend to take this to mean a lot more than it does.
Even if "You can't disprove God exists" is a bad argument for the existence of God, that doesn't give any reason for us to believe that God doesn't exist. At best, it tells us that we should be completely agnostic--that is, say that we have absolutely no idea about whether or not God exists.
When the atheist says "God does not exist" they require just as much proof as the theist requires when they say "God exists".

Having no proof for something is enough reason to say it doesn't exist.
Think of a courtroom, they won't accuse anybody of anything if they don't have proof. (And if they do, they're not very professional)

[abc983055235235231a]

Having no proof for something is enough reason to say it doesn't exist.
Think of a courtroom, they won't accuse anybody of anything if they don't have proof. (And if they do, they're not very professional)

The justice system is the only place where that happens, because there are de facto truths in the justice system. Reality, however, doesn't work like that. You don't get to say that a metaphysical claim is true just because an argument to the contrary is a bad argument.

Like I said, the claim "there is no God" requires just as much proof as the claim "there is a God". Absence of evidence for God does not constitute evidence for the nonexistence of God.

[phuckphace]

The justice system is the only place where that happens, because there are de facto truths in the justice system. Reality, however, doesn't work like that. You don't get to say that a metaphysical claim is true just because an argument to the contrary is a bad argument.

Like I said, the claim "there is no God" requires just as much proof as the claim "there is a God". Absence of evidence for God does not constitute evidence for the nonexistence of God.

good post. I agree completely

[Gamma Male]

good post. I agree completely

I was gonna say the same thing. Wow. I found something we agree on.

yaaaaaaaayyyy :P

[Miserabilia]

The justice system is the only place where that happens, because there are de facto truths in the justice system. Reality, however, doesn't work like that. You don't get to say that a metaphysical claim is true just because an argument to the contrary is a bad argument.

Like I said, the claim "there is no God" requires just as much proof as the claim "there is a God". Absence of evidence for God does not constitute evidence for the nonexistence of God.

Even if you can't fully disprove something, that doesn't make it a useful argument; first of all it doesn't get anyone anywhere, secondly, it would mean we have to assume everything is unknown untill it is prooven to not-exist.

[Vlerchan]

[...] it would mean we have to assume everything is unknown untill it is prooven to not-exist.
Yes.

I'm not seeing why this should be an issue.

[abc983055235235231a]

Even if you can't fully disprove something, that doesn't make it a useful argument; first of all it doesn't get anyone anywhere, secondly, it would mean we have to assume everything is unknown untill it is prooven to not-exist.

It doesn't mean that at all. It just means that, when we do hold firm beliefs, we have to hold those beliefs to a higher standard. There are lots of good reasons to believe in God, and there are lot of good reasons not to. It just so happens that "You can't disprove God" is a lousy reason to believe in God, and "You can't prove God" is a lousy reason to not believe in God.

[Miserabilia]

Yes.

I'm not seeing why this should be an issue.

Because than finding out ANYTHING about ANYTHING would take forever, because you could just state anything and it would be true/unknown untill someone searches every little thing in the universe and concludes it's not there. It's more effecient to say something exists when you proove it, and otherwise you just don't know.
(And not knowing is to me not a good reason to beleive in something, I also don't know unicorns exist this way but I don't beleive in them either)

It doesn't mean that at all. It just means that, when we do hold firm beliefs, we have to hold those beliefs to a higher standard. There are lots of good reasons to believe in God, and there are lot of good reasons not to. It just so happens that "You can't disprove God" is a lousy reason to believe in God, and "You can't prove God" is a lousy reason to not believe in God.

It is a lousy reason to beleive, but it's a good reason not to beleive;
not beleiving in something because's there's no evidence for it makes sense, I wouldn't call it all-knowing and perfect, but it's not "lousy".
Not beleiving in spaghetti monsters because there's no evidence for them makes sense

[abc983055235235231a]

Because than finding out ANYTHING about ANYTHING would take forever, because you could just state anything and it would be true/unknown untill someone searches every little thing in the universe and concludes it's not there. It's more effecient to say something exists when you proove it, and otherwise you just don't know.
(And not knowing is to me not a good reason to beleive in something, I also don't know unicorns exist this way but I don't beleive in them either)



It is a lousy reason to beleive, but it's a good reason not to beleive;
not beleiving in something because's there's no evidence for it makes sense, I wouldn't call it all-knowing and perfect, but it's not "lousy".
Not beleiving in spaghetti monsters because there's no evidence for them makes sense

That's still not a particularly good reason. I have no evidence that you have $20 in your pocket right now. That doesn't give me a reason to believe that you *don't* have $20 in your pocket. In fact, it would be pretty crazy for me to assert that you do not have $20 in your pocket solely because I have no evidence that you do.

If I say "there is no evidence that the 9/11 attack was a government conspiracy" that really doesn't do anything to show that it wasn't a government conspiracy unless I have some supporting evidence that it wasn't a government conspiracy. Otherwise, you basically have to be agnostic.

[Vlerchan]

Because than finding out ANYTHING about ANYTHING would take forever[1], because you could just state anything and it would be true/unknown[2] untill someone searches every little thing in the universe and concludes it's not there[3]. It's more effecient to say something exists when you proove it, and otherwise you just don't know[4].
(And not knowing is to me not a good reason to beleive in something, I also don't know unicorns exist this way but I don't beleive in them either)
[1]: I never said it was a bad idea to focus on the more reasonable-sounding theories. This is how science generally works.

This also isn't relevant to 'ANYTHING', just certain things.

[2]: Unknown. Just, unknown.

Also, again: not 'anything'.

[3]: It's entirely possible that a god or gods would not reside in the universe as we know it, so there may still be doubt in such a case.

[4]: As long as you don't mistake it for 'logical' then I don't really mind how you decide to label your belief-system.

[Miserabilia]

That's still not a particularly good reason. I have no evidence that you have $20 in your pocket right now. That doesn't give me a reason to believe that you *don't* have $20 in your pocket. In fact, it would be pretty crazy for me to assert that you do not have $20 in your pocket solely because I have no evidence that you do.

If I say "there is no evidence that the 9/11 attack was a government conspiracy" that really doesn't do anything to show that it wasn't a government conspiracy unless I have some supporting evidence that it wasn't a government conspiracy. Otherwise, you basically have to be agnostic.

True, true.
But you have no REASON to beleive I have anything in my pocket unless I tell you and everyone here by writing it here. That would be something and then I could upload a picture to show it; it's not definte proof but atleast it's something. For the existence of a god there is no definte sign or proof as far as I know, and the personal experiences are different for everyone so testemonial doesn't really do it either.
[1]: I never said it was a bad idea to focus on the more reasonable-sounding theories. This is how science generally works.

This also isn't relevant to 'ANYTHING', just certain things.

[2]: Unknown. Just, unknown.

Also, again: not 'anything'.

[3]: It's entirely possible that a god or gods would not reside in the universe as we know it, so there may still be doubt in such a case.

[4]: As long as you don't mistake it for 'logical' then I don't really mind how you decide to label your belief-system.

It's enteriely logical to beleive what you can proof or verify and not what you can't.
It's illogical to beleive/deny something because there's no proof is what the point is, even though I had the wrong idea about it at first,
it's very logical to beleive what you know or can verify.

[Vlerchan]

it's very logical to beleive what you know or can verify.
The problem is that you haven't verified that a God doesn't exist yet.

[Camazotz]

The problem is that you haven't verified that a God doesn't exist yet.

You can't do that because it's impossible. The burden of proof is on you; if you make a claim, you have to back it up.

[Miserabilia]

The problem is that you haven't verified that a God doesn't exist yet.

You don't need to. The burden of proof is with the claim.
I also haven't verified that spaghetti monsters and unicorns and lord voldemort don't exist, but that doesn't mean I have a reason not to beleive in them when there's no evidence.

[Vlerchan]

You don't need to. The burden of proof is with the claim[1].
I also haven't verified that spaghetti monsters and unicorns and lord voldemort don't exist, but that doesn't mean I have a reason to beleive in them when there's no evidence[2]:.
[1]: Yes. And you are making the claim that a god or gods do not exist.

[2]: It's not logical to believe that metaphysical actors do not exist on the sole basis that there is zero evidence pertaining towards their existence. I've already outlined that such a conclusion infers two distinct possibilities. The logical approach here would be pure agnosticism - i.e., belief neither way.

I am skeptical towards the idea of a gods existence, though I am reluctant to claim that one for-certain does not exist.

You can't do that because it's impossible. The burden of proof is on you; if you make a claim, you have to back it up[3].
[3]:I'm not making any claims. It's Cheesee that's making claims here - and I agree: if you do make a claim you have to back it up, because otherwise it's just speculation.

[radsniper]

junk

[Miserabilia]

[1]: Yes. And you are making the claim that a god or gods do not exist.

[2]: It's not logical to believe that metaphysical actors do not exist on the sole basis that there is zero evidence pertaining towards their existence. I've already outlined that such a conclusion infers two distinct possibilities. The logical approach here would be pure agnosticism - i.e., belief neither way.

I am skeptical towards the idea of a gods existence, though I am reluctant to claim that one for-certain does not exist.


[3]:I'm not making any claims. It's Cheesee that's making claims here - and I agree: if you do make a claim you have to back it up, because otherwise it's just speculation.

At first I claimed god does not exist, but we're already far past that.
What we've been discussing for the previous 10 posts or so is whether or not having no evidence is a reason to not beleive in something.
I am not saying it does not exist, I am saying having no evidence is a good reason to NOT beleive in one, and that no evidence is NOT a good reason to beleive.

[Vlerchan]

At first I claimed god does not exist, but we're already far past that.
What we've been discussing for the previous 10 posts or so is whether or not having no evidence is a reason to not beleive in something.
I am not saying it does not exist, I am saying having no evidence is a good reason to NOT beleive in one, and that no evidence is NOT a good reason to beleive.
Oh. Right. I've misunderstood (I think:/): I wasn't quite catching your wording, which is somewhat awkward. Am I correct in believing that your position is one of neither belief or lack of belief in a god or gods? It's more so your claim that we're passed my earlier issue as opposed to your (still problematic) wording of your current argument above - so I could still be still misunderstanding.

[Miserabilia]

Oh. Right. I've misunderstood (I think:/): I wasn't quite catching your wording, which is somewhat awkward. Am I correct in believing that your position is one of neither belief or lack of belief in a god or gods? It's more so your claim that we're passed my earlier issue as opposed to your (still problematic) wording of your current argument above - so I could still be still misunderstanding.

Actualy I am just a very confusing person lel.
I tend to switch subject a little too quickly.
Currently, in this disucssion, my viewpoint is,
that I do not beleive in a god,
BUT I do think it is more reasonable not to beleive than to beleive.